1944 Long Branch No.4 Mk1* Jungle Carbine Prototype?

There exists the possibility that the UK sent a few examples of their JC to Canada so that LB could determine if Canadian manufacture was feasible. LB then 'played' with these. This may have been ad hoc and no significant expenditure was forecast so no paperwork for this non-project was created. However, even as I write this, I feel that I am trying to shoe-horn the few facts available into a conclusion that members seem to be pre-disposed to.
Clive

re: Comments about 'lost' REL files. My research uncovered some files extant at the National Research Canada (NRC) and, in speaking with the folks at NRC, many of these documents were destroyed long after their legal retention period. No conspiracy. No international pressure. Just the simple fact that document storage is expensive and the Archives Act focuses on the need to retain policy documents and not production documents.

All this conjecture and discussion about if Long Branch made No. 5 rifles or not parallels the FAL/SLR production, design and development with the UK, Canada, FN and Australia. Ideas were thought of, discussed, designed, developed, built and trialed. Even one-offs were built of proposed design changes to evaluate possible production and what would need to be altered or changed in standard production. I see it as very feasible that Canada would produce a small quantity of No. 5 rifles with the view of possible production for the Pacific theater if required. In doing so they would then know what alterations in production would be required and more importantly how much it would cost.

just my .05c

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by servicepub

There exists the possibility that the UK sent a few examples of their JC to Canada so that LB could determine if Canadian manufacture was feasible. LB then 'played' with these. This may have been ad hoc and no significant expenditure was forecast so no paperwork for this non-project was created. However, even as I write this, I feel that I am trying to shoe-horn the few facts available into a conclusion that members seem to be pre-disposed to.
Clive

re: Comments about 'lost' REL files. My research uncovered some files extant at the National Research Canada (NRC) and, in speaking with the folks at NRC, many of these documents were destroyed long after their legal retention period. No conspiracy. No international pressure. Just the simple fact that document storage is expensive and the Archives Act focuses on the need to retain policy documents and not production documents.

---

Will have to beg to differ with you there. The subtle differences between the No.5s photographed at Long Branch in 1944/45 we have discussed. They are typical of the innovative approach at Long Branch in my opinion. The camera lied much less then than it does now.

A considerable amount of history will not be found in the surviving records for various reasons. It is the current fashion in historiography to believe that no reliance can be placed on anything but the written records, and that nothing happened which is not contained in them; this must amuse official "weeders" no end! Future historians may therefore conclude that "accidentally" shredded NAFTA records never really existed, or that the Official History of WWI is an entirely true depiction of events. Sadly, the man who wrote it, Gen. Edmonds, made light of such an idea in his correspondence.

"Conspiracy" is a pointless and over-used term. I won't bother to debate the geopolitics of the Western Hemisphere here, but the way in which both the UK and the USA, among most other great powers, have used various strategic resources and policy means to further their industrial interests is matter of public record.

Of course one should never ascribe to malintention what can be explained by mere stupidity, so it is quite possible that the REL records were disposed of without microfilming for "space reasons", just as the Canadian War Museum sent to the dumpster most of the papers from the Ross Rifle Company, along with various artifacts from that company which they felt did not "fit" their collection.